Is there a religion in which believers also suffer and are punished?

[Kimstu]

@NeonMadman

Since nobody has works that are worthy of salvation but all are condemned by their sin, God elects some for salvation, purely by His grace, based on His own good reasons (which are not revealed to humans).

And that is why, from a sinful human perspective, this doctrine of salvation is indistinguishable from a random lottery: no human can know who’s going to be saved and who isn’t. And no human consciousness of personal faith, however strong, or human commitment to good works, however earnest, is adequate to determine that question.

Which is why, to get back to the actual thread topic, I opined that this belief system qualifies at least to some extent for the OP’s criterion, since at least some “believers also suffer and are punished” no matter how earnestly they uphold the requirements of their faith.

Nothing you’ve said so far in any way contradicts that general observation. However, I apologize if the way I originally stated it appeared to you to be inappropriately flippant or disrespectful of your faith.

@NeonMadman

You have continued to advance incorrect understandings of what Calvinism is, and you keep insisting that the notions you are offering are a particular version of Calvinism that is somehow different from what Calvinists believe. In fact, the ideas you have advanced are completely contrary to Calvinism. […] One of the “five points” - the non-negotiable doctrines - of Calvinism is unconditional election. Any person or church that embraces conditional election is simply not Calvinist at all.

Take it up with the Arminians. I have no dog in this fight and no interest in getting into “True Scotsman” debates about what any particular modern Calvinist considers to be the requirements for being a “true” Calvinist. But the historical fact is that some theologians do consider some sects which adhere to the doctrine of conditional election, such as Arminianism, to be a form of Calvinism.

[NeonMadman]

@Kimstu

Take it up with the Arminians. I have no dog in this fight and no interest in getting into “True Scotsman” debates about what any particular modern Calvinist considers to be the requirements for being a “true” Calvinist. But the historical fact is that some theologians do consider some sects which adhere to the doctrine of conditional election, such as Arminianism, to be a form of Calvinism.

Can you name me some theologians who say that Arminianism is a form of Calvinism? Because that’s pretty much like saying that totalitarian monarchies are a form of democracy. The whole point of Arminianism is that, in its pure form, it denies *all *of the five points of Calvinism. I’ll admit that there are all sorts of “in between” ideas that some people get in which they accept some points and deny others (which seems inconsistent to me, but hey). But Arminianism and Calvinism are diametrically opposed to one another.

And I don’t see this as a “true Scotsman” sort of issue. Calvinism is very specifically defined by the five points. You believe in the five points, you are a Calvinist. You deny them, you’re not a Calvinist. There are some folks you might still include under the general banner of Calvinism called Amyraldians, who adhere to four of the five points; but the point they deny is limited atonement, not unconditional election. But someone who - like an Arminian - denies all five points, cannot be considered a Calvinist by any reasonable definition. And I don’t care how much sugar he puts on his porridge.:rolleyes:

[Melbourne]

@Kimstu

It’s also nothing like what actual Calvinist doctrine of the unconditional-election persuasion actually says. I refer you to the Confessio Belgica of 1618:

Emphasis added. “Work for results” is exactly what this doctrine identifies as irrelevant and beside the point when it comes to God’s salvation.

Like I said, Calvinist doctrine wasn’t monolithic even in the early modern period, and I can well believe that many Calvinist churches today, especially of the conditional-election persuasion, have a different take on salvation. But that doesn’t mean that what I said about this particular Calvinist take on salvation was wrong.

I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear enough to communicate my meaning to you.

In practice, Calvinism lead to “good works”. Descriptions that fail to take this into account are specious.

Note: I have not written that Calvinism required or accepted “Good Works” as related to salvation. That was your straw man.